Individual Liability for Acts of Discrimination in the Workplace
• public
Understanding Individual and Employer Liability in Disability Discrimination Cases
When can an individual be held liable for acts of discrimination suffered by an employee? This question was recently addressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a case involving disability discrimination claims against an employer and two colleagues. The case, Baldwin v Cleves School [2024] EAT 66, provides valuable insights into individual and employer liability.
Case Background: Disability Discrimination Claims
The claimant, a newly qualified teacher disabled under the Equality Act 2010, resigned after several incidents involving a colleague (M) and the head teacher (H). These incidents were related to her disability, including unauthorized information gathering about her ill health from her tutor. The claimant subsequently filed disability discrimination claims against the school, M, and H.
Initial Tribunal Findings
The employment tribunal upheld two disability discrimination claims against the school, ruling it vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of M and H, which occurred during their employment. The tribunal found that the employer had not taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent the discrimination, a necessary defense to avoid vicarious liability for discriminatory acts committed by employees.
However, the tribunal dismissed the claims against M and H individually, deeming their actions “misguided” attempts to manage a complex situation without timely HR advice. The claimant appealed this decision to the EAT.
EAT Decision: Establishing Individual Liability
The EAT upheld the claimant’s appeal, substituting a finding that both M and H were liable for the acts of discrimination, alongside the school as their employer. The EAT emphasized that once the tribunal determined the employer’s vicarious liability for acts violating the Equality Act 2010, it was mandatory to find the individual respondents liable if named in the claim. The legislation does not grant tribunals discretion in such scenarios.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees
The EAT’s decision highlights several critical points for both employers and employees:
• Individual Liability: Individuals can be named as respondents in tribunal claims and be held liable for unlawful discrimination committed during their employment.
• Employer’s Defence: Employers can defend against claims by proving they took ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent discrimination, including providing recent and high-quality Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (ED&I) training and maintaining robust policies and procedures.
• Joint and Several Liability: In practice, both employers and individual respondents are usually jointly and severally liable for compensation, meaning the claimant can recover the full amount from either party.
Practical Implications for Employers
Employers must ensure they take comprehensive steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace. This includes:
- Regular ED&I Training: Providing employees with frequent and high-quality training on equality, diversity, and inclusion.
- Robust Policies: Implementing and enforcing comprehensive policies and procedures to address and prevent discriminatory behavior.
- Timely HR Advice: Ensuring managers and staff seek and receive timely HR advice in complex situations to avoid misguided actions.
Balancing Legal Responsibilities and Employee Rights
This case underscores the importance of understanding the legal responsibilities of both employers and individual employees regarding discrimination. Employers should be diligent in creating an inclusive and fair work environment, while employees should be aware of their rights and the potential liabilities they may face.
Final Thoughts on Liability for Discrimination Acts
In claims involving harassment or discrimination, it’s common for individual perpetrators to be named as respondents. Tribunals may find such acts to have occurred ‘in the course of employment’ even if they happen at work-related social events outside working hours. This can complicate matters, especially if the individual respondent is no longer employed by the employer.
It is often advisable for individual respondents to seek separate legal representation to avoid conflicts of interest. Compensation awards can be made against individual respondents, but the employer and any individuals involved are typically jointly and severally liable.
Employers should proactively address potential discrimination issues and ensure all employees understand their roles and responsibilities in maintaining a discrimination-free workplace. For further details, read the full EAT decision here.
